PDA

View Full Version : Tiny Tim



TonyPiech
11-28-2004, 08:48 PM
I've been flying Corsairs and checking out the various ordinance that it can carry. What's the differnce between the Tiny Tim and the other rockets that are available to load?

VW-IceFire
11-28-2004, 08:50 PM
Have you actually loaded a Tiny Tim up on your Corsair?

They are HUGE rockets. Very potent. You can take down battleships and carriers with those if you make contact.

TonyPiech
11-28-2004, 09:29 PM
I created an FMB and managed to get my Corsair off the carrier, I selected the CV-11 Intrepid, probably the longest carrier in the Sim and had it going at top speed. After crashing in the water several times I was finally sucessful going full-WEP, 120% Mix, fuel load was 50 and no flaps. About a quarter of the deck left -- I went to combat flaps and pulled the stick back slightly just before running-out of deck, lifted the gear and quickly raised the flaps. I sunk a bit but then gained altitude gradually. It would be nice if you can load just the TinyTims instead of the package of TinyTims and rockets.

The TinyTim is somewhat harder to aim on target, they drop free-fall for a bit before igniting, so you need to lead them more than the rockets.

SkyChimp
11-28-2004, 09:53 PM
They have VERY flat trajectories and are VERY fast. I recommend setting up with unlimited ammo and flying around a land area with lots of targets and practicing. They are hard to aim, but destroy anything they hit.

clint-ruin
11-28-2004, 11:22 PM
Hi skychimp,

If I remember this right, once very long ago you posted a scan of a print article on the use of TTs in Korea from Corsairs - used for bunker busting and such. Do you still have that anywhere, if it was you who posted it? I'd like to take a look at it again one day :>

KStoff
11-29-2004, 12:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They have VERY flat trajectories and are VERY fast.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and they have a nuke warhead... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

When I first use TT against the carrier I couldn't stop laughing. Two hits is enoygh to sink it! And the battleship needs six or eight, I don't remember exactly (tried in FMB). Well I am not an expert, but I do know that in some circumstances a carrier MAY be sunk or damaged badly with only one very unlucky hit, but a battleship? No, I can't understand it. Where's the realism?

Salute!

clint-ruin
11-29-2004, 01:17 AM
How does penetration against concrete bunkers stack up against penetration through the top or side of a deck? They may well be drilling through and out the other side.

Athosd
11-29-2004, 04:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
How does penetration against concrete bunkers stack up against penetration through the top or side of a deck? They may well be drilling through and out the other side. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Battleships have armour composed of very thick high quality steel often many inches thick, configured to resist plunging fire. Armour designed to resist 500kg+ armour piercing projectiles travelling at near the speed of sound should have little trouble resisting the TT.
Concrete is not so hot at resisting penetration by blast - eg. a 66mm SRAAW (shaped charge so much better penetration than point det) can punch through ~150mm of armour plate, yet will easily get through 1500mm of concrete.

Cheers

Athos

Beirut
11-29-2004, 04:59 AM
I read that the American carriers had teak plancks 8" thick as the deck. Easier to repair than steel and didn't create shrapnel when hit.

Penetration must have been easy, but what was under the wood I don't know.

Slug-Catcher
12-01-2004, 12:18 PM
They were wooden early on, But after a few Carriers went up in flames the were converted.

If Im not mistaken.

I dont think shrapnel was any concern. It really doesnt matter how "Shrapnel safe" your ship is, if its at the bottom of the Pacific.

VMF-214_HaVoK
12-01-2004, 12:35 PM
You can find a little history on the Tiny Tim here http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/tiny-tim.html

Zarathael
12-02-2004, 07:32 PM
The Japanese and the British had armored flight decks on their carriers, but material I've read suggests that the US never did. Something about the added weight would have limited the number of aircraft that could be carried. Primary reason that our carriers were so vulnerable to kamikazes. As another note, I highly doubt whether or not ANY number of tiny tim rockets would sink a battleship. destroy most of it's weapons, obliterate the superstructure, kill off lots and lots of gunners, yes, but sinking.... dunno.

SkyChimp
12-02-2004, 07:40 PM
Clint:

It was me that posted it. It was an excerpt from Naval Aviation News. I don't remember which issue it was. You can find all of the 1940's issues in this link. Concentrate on the 1945 and 1946 issues. There is TONS of good stuff in these back issues of NAN:

http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1940s/1940smain/1940smain.htm

Snootles
12-02-2004, 07:47 PM
The one disadvantage of armored decks/hangars is the loss in aircraft capacity. It was for this reason the US Navy never used it operationally in WWII- they valued carrying capacity on their carriers. The Midway class was the first to have the armor, because the design was large enough to carry a lot of protection and guns and still mount over a hundred planes.

berg417448
12-02-2004, 07:52 PM
Here is a good discussion of the "wood vs armored" carrier decks:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm

SkyChimp
12-02-2004, 08:14 PM
Berg, that's a great read, that's for posting it. I've read some similar analyses, but that was the easiest to understand.